Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 4

LARGE SCALE PV PLANTS IN NORTH AFRICA AND THE MIDDLE EAST Are Large Scale PV Plants in the Sun-Belt

Countries Overshadowed by CSP s Recent Boom? A Technical and Economical Comparison David Lecoufle, Richard Lawless, Dr. Matthias Hampel Renewable Energy Division Lahmeyer International GmbH, Friedberger Strasse 173, D-61118 Bad Vilbel David.Lecoufle@lahmeyer.de, tel: +49 (6101) 55 - 1439 Richard.Lawless@lahmeyer.de, tel: +49 (6101) 55 - 1460 Matthias.Hampel@lahmeyer.de, tel: +49 (6101) 55 - 1898 Fax: +49 (6101) 55 - 2101

ABSTRACT: The recent CSP Rush in countries with high irradiation, such as in North Africa and the Middle East, has often overshadowed the possibilities of PV implementation in the same region. The main arguments for this rush are the relatively low energy generation costs and the economies of scale for 50 MW plants and above. Nevertheless, PV plants in the range of 20 to 40 MW and beyond have become a standard in Spain, and no longer present technical barriers. Furthermore, turn-key PV plants can be delivered today within a period of twelve months and are easily expendable. Among others, this paper is aimed at utilities and independent energy producers in regions which are looking for solutions and may have overlooked the PV alternative. On the basis of feasibility studies recently carried out in Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates, this paper explores the possibility of implementing large PV plants in these regions. This paper starts on a brief comparison of the technologies main technical characteristics and market maturity. The PV technology covers the conventional crystalline technology, as well as dual axis tracking systems and thin film modules. Following this technology introduction, this paper looks at the energy yield of each and finishes on a consideration of the Energy Generation Costs today and in coming years. The results show that the PV alternative does not lie much higher than CSP when it comes to the Energy Generation Costs, without mentioning the other advantages that the technology brings. Keywords: Economic Analysis, Energy Options, Large Grid-connected PV systems, PV Market

INTRODUCTION

Table I: Technical Comparison PV vs CSP PV Global Irradiation (GHI) Light slope tolerated, shape unimportant 2.5 3 ha per MW CSP Direct Normal Irradiation (DNI) Light slope tolerated, preferably square 2 ha per MW, more with storage Low number of Large amount of individual components. components. Electrical and Electrical only hydraulics Quick and flexible. Long and complex. Parts readily Lead time up to 2 available years No on-site personnel. Remote operation Not economically viable Technical staff needed for O&M 8 hours already proven, longer is possible Yes

The purpose of this paper is to study and compare the alternatives Concentrated Solar Thermal Power (CSP) and Photovoltaic (PV) for given sites in regions with high solar irradiation. For the CSP options, the trough technology is considered, while for PV, crystalline silicon (c-Si) as well as Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) is considered. The paper considers the current market situation in order to allow for a swift decision making so as to connect the Power Plant by 2013 latest. Hence the prices and technologies considered here are available in the course of the year 2009. New and promising technologies were deliberately not considered in order to minimise any technology related risks. Within the framework of feasibility studies, potential sites were identified were the characteristics of the terrain could allow for the construction of either of the technologies. Before concentrating on the quantitative consideration, some qualitative and general characteristics of both technologies can be assessed. These should be considered before any decision making, since there may be some criteria more or less important to the power producer or the utility. The main characteristics for the planning, construction and operation are summarised in the following table.

Used Solar resources Terrain requirement Area Complexity

Construction

Operation

Energy storage

Integration in No conventional power plants DispatchPower generation ability directly bound to solar irradiation Daily energy Peak around pattern midday

Yes

Can be adapted to demand if storage used

METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS

2.1 Sites and solar resources Since the sites selected generally need to be suitable for both technologies, they are located on very flat terrains, and the area is not the limiting factor. For CSP plants, the recommended maximum slope is generally in the range of 2-3%. Above this value, the ground needs to be levelised or can be prepared in small terraces. For PV, slopes of up to 10-20% can be tolerated without much ground preparation. The sites are close to the necessary infrastructure, namely high voltage (HV) transmission lines or substation, easy road access and when possible proximity to a water source. Moreover, the absence of sand storms or extreme weather episodes was also a selection criterion. The key characteristics of the sites are summarised in the table below. It is worth mentioning that the uncertainty is generally higher for the DNI resource and the different data sets can give significantly different values. The values considered here are conservative so as to have a good level of confidence. Table II: Sites selected for the study Site 1 Country GHI [kWh/m.a] DNI [kWh/m.a] Tunisia 1,850 1,850 Site 2 United Arab Emirates 2,100 2,061

For the PV fixed mounted plants (crystalline of CdTe), the tilt of the modules was taken as the latitude of the site. The plant CSP 1.a does not have a storage but uses an auxiliary burner to stabilise the generation. At the end of the year, about 25% of the output is generated from the gas burner. 3 POWER GENERATION Based on the available solar resources on the respective sites and the prevailing weather conditions (wind, temperature and rainfall), the annual electrical output of each of the different options was simulated using software recognised in the market. For the PV options, the environment was dynamically simulated taking into account the air temperature and the wind speed. Although it is known that the performance of PV modules goes down in hot climates, the results are still relatively high. Nevertheless, more than 2,000 full load hours can only be achieved by the PV plant using tracking systems. For the CSP technology, both options with storage have by far the highest output of all options and reach more than 3,000 full load hours per year. This is due to the fact that the trough area is double that of a system without storage. Both options without storage produce in the range of 2,000 full load hours from the mere solar energy. On top of this, option CSP 1.a produces about 25% more energy directly from gas as shown in brown in the figure. The figure below summarises the results of the yield simulation for all the options.
4000 3500 Annual Production [kWh/kW] 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Pv 1.a PV 1.b Pv 2.a PV 2.b CSP 1.a CSP 1.b CSP 2.a CSP 2.b

The GHI and DNI values considered here are mainly worked out using several recognised sources in the sector such as METEONORM [1] and meteocontrol [2] for the GHI or HelioClim [3] for the DNI. Incidentally, the DNI and GHI values in both cases are very close. 2.2 Technology and plant type The technologies chosen for the purpose of this paper strictly consist of commercially available and proven technologies. Among these, the following were selected: Crystalline silicon (fixed and tracked) and Cadmium Telluride (CdTe) for PV. On the CSP side parabolic troughs with and without storage were considered. The nominal output power considered here ranges from 50 MW to 100 MW. The following plant configurations were considered for the sites. Table III: Plants configuration considered Site 1 50 MW Fixed mounted, crystalline Silicon 50 MW Dual axis tracked, crystalline Silicon 50 MW Parabolic trough, no storage 50 MW Parabolic trough, 9h molten salt storage Site 2 50 MW Fixed mounted, crystalline Silicon 50 MW Fixed mounted, CdTe 100 MW Parabolic trough, 1 hour oil storage 100 MW Parabolic trough, 8h molten salt storage

Figure 1: Annual production of the different options As mentioned in the introduction, the PV plants have the major disadvantage that the dispatch of power cannot be shifted and is directly subject to the passing of clouds. The next figure presents a typical daily output of a PV plant on a day with sun and cloud intermittence.

PV a

PV b

CSP a

CSP b

10 9 8 7 Power (no scale) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 08:00

4 / W, those considering a state-of-the-art storage cost almost twice the amount. The current price situation of CSP is on a high level due to the relative high demand compared to the limited supply. Thus on the investment level, there is to date hardly any difference between PV and CSP, unless storage is considered in which case the costs become much more important. 4.2 Operation and maintenance costs The assumptions on operation and maintenance costs are likewise based on figures observed in the market in the course of the year 2009. For the PV technologies, these costs are mainly bound to the preventive and corrective maintenance of the inverters and / or trackers. With regards to the CSP technology however, it also includes gas costs if applicable and labour costs for the personnel located on site. The following table shows the assumptions considered for the technologies. The prices are fees to be collected annually for the O&M. Table IV: Annual O&M costs PV O&M costs Combustible (when applicable) Total 20-40 /kW 20-40 /kW CSP 75-85 /kW 65 /kW 75-150 /kW

10:00

12:00

14:00

16:00

18:00

20:00

Time of the day

Figure 2: Typical daily pattern of a PV plant This figure shows that the power can be multiplied or divided by a factor of four in less than one minute which can represent a problem in weak networks. Moreover, the maximum power is reached around midday, whereas a CSP plant can control and stabilise the power output throughout the day (partly also because of its thermal inertia) and up to the night if a storage is integrated. Hence on the production side, there is not much difference in the annual production of energy between PV and CSP unless a storage system is considered. A major advantage remains certainly the dispatchability of the power from the CSP plants. 4 FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS Although the quality of the energy is of high importance, the decisive factor may be the economical one. This chapter analyses the current investment and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) prices to determine the levelised costs of electricity. 4.1 Investment costs Based on turn-key prices observed in the market during the first and second quarter of 2009, the specific investment costs were assessed on a realistic level which would allow a decision making process to connect the plants to the grid latest in 2013. These are represented in the graph below.
8
Investment Costs [ mio / MW]

The lower price considered for PV refers to the fixed system, whereas the higher one refers to systems with trackers. For CSP, the actual combustible component obviously depends on the market prices, and is hence relatively volatile. 4.3 Levelised costs of electricity Based on the assumptions of the previous two chapters, the levelised costs of electricity could be worked out. These consider an economic lifetime of 25 years of the solar power plants and a discount rate of 10%. The following table summarises the results for all the technical options considered previously.
30 Levelised Electricity Cost [c /kWh] 25 20 15 10 5 0 Pv 1.a PV 1.b Pv 2.a PV 2.b CSP 1.a CSP 1.b CSP 2.a CSP 2.b

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Pv 1.a PV 1.b Pv 2.a PV 2.b CSP 1.a CSP 1.b CSP 2.a CSP 2.b

Figure 3: Investment costs of the different options Following the remarkable drop in price of the PV modules, especially in the crystalline technology, turnkey prices considered here range from 3 to 4 / Wp. Only the tracking system has a slightly higher specific investment cost. Although the simple CSP trough plants also have specific investment costs in the range of 3 to

Figure 4: Levelised Cost of Electricity of the different options As it can be seen here, none of the options have a very clear advantage with respect to the Levelised Costs of Electricity (LCOE). The cheapest option remains the CSP with an auxiliary gas burner. However, this option is prone to gas price volatility, and does not allow complete independence from that resource. All other alternatives, either PV or CSP are within the same range, from 23 to

26 c / kWh. Hence the LCOE cannot yet be the most decisive factor when considering one or the other technology. 5 OUTLOOK Since the decision making process may not be as fast as expected and a roadmap for the next decade may be necessary, the development of LCOE for the next two decades was studied. To get an idea about the development of the LCOE, the expected evolution of investment costs was considered. This was considered for the options PV 1.a and CSP 1.a in the context of Tunisia. In this case, the LCOE for PV are currently above those of CSP. For the PV technology, a price decrease in the range of 10% annually was considered for the first three years, followed by a price decrease of 5% annually. Today, after having experienced the drastic price drop of the past few months, it is even believed that these values are on the conservative side. The corresponding LCOE s are represented in blue in the next figure. The x-axis represents the year of commissioning of the plant, while the y-axis represents the LCOE s over a 25 life-span of the plant. For the CSP technology represented here in red, the price decrease is hindered in the first few years by the high demand coupled to a limited supply: in this period an investment price decrease is assumed to remain in the range of 3% annually, while evolving to 8% in the following three years. After that time, in this scenario, the investment prices are considered to remain constant. However, the results shown below take into account the inflation which induces a light upward trend of the costs. Moreover, since the case CSP 1.a is considered here, the increase of the gas prices is also taken into account and thus show a noticeable increase in LCOE from CSP starting in the middle of next decade. As a comparison, the LCOE from conventional combined cycle gas plants is shown in brown in the graph. The development of the gas prices is based on the estimates from the Energy Information Administration (EIA) [4]. These figures are regarded as conservative since they consider a price increase in the range of 3% annually.
30 Levelised Electricity Costs [c /kWh] 25 20 15 10 5 PV 0 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 Comissioning Year CSP GCC

the parity with combined cycle gas plants is not expected before another two decades Nevertheless, within the framework of sensitivity analyses, an average gas price increase of 4% annually was considered. This small change would bring the parity between solar electricity and conventional electricity in about one decade from now. Apart from this direct comparison of PV 1.a and CSP 1.a it should be noted that in other cases, electricity produced from PV plants can be cheaper than from CSP plants already today. 6 CONCLUSIONS This paper has shown that today, electricity generation costs alone cannot facilitate the choice between either PV or CSP since they lie very close to each other. Moreover, if PV prices keep falling as they have started in 2009, it is very likely that PV takes the lead in term of electricity generation costs within the next decade. Nevertheless, the CSP technology brings an important dimension to the energy quality by allowing a stable output throughout the day and storage to the night. This is certainly a major advantage in countries where the consumption peak is in the evening hours. However, the implementation of storage results in very high investment costs, which might not necessarily be justified by the energy advantage. Today, and as long as each technology only represents a fraction of the energy mix of a respective country, both technologies definitely bring valid credentials and complement each other. A site or country specific study should hence be systematically carried out in order to clearly respond to the needs or expectations of the interested parties.

REFERENCES

[1] http://www.meteonorm.com/pages/en/meteonorm.php [2] http://www.meteocontrol.de/ [3] http://www.helioclim.net/ [4] http://www.eia.doe.gov/

Figure 5: Development of LCOE s (PV 1.a, CSP 1.a) Taken into account the values stated above, two interesting findings can be made as can be seen in the graph: while the electricity production costs PV plant PV 1.a are higher today, they may become cheaper than that of CSP plant CSP 1.a in about a decade

Вам также может понравиться